(i) Field of the Invention
This invention relates to a remote injector structure to deliver at least one chemical compound into or onto animals or any other living creature or inanimate object while the operator is at a distance therefrom.
(ii) Description of the Prior Art
The art is replete with remote injection devices of the general nature described above. In some of these devices, the charge is disposed in a sealed chamber, one end of which is ruptured by a slidable hollow needle, to allow the charge to be propelled out from the hollow needle into the animal struck by the needle. The art was concerned mainly with the means for propelling the charge out from the hollow needle, when the sealed chamber was pierced. In other of these devices, the charge was expelled upon impact-triggered detonation of an explosive charge.
Among the patents providing such propulsion means are the following:
U.S. Pat. No. 1,815,300 patented July 21, 1931, by B. W. Harris,
U.S. Pat. No. 1,819,415 patented Aug. 18, 1931, by B. Harris,
U.S. Pat. No. 2,617,359, patented Nov. 11, 1952, by G. E. Van Horn et al,
U.S. Pat. No. 2,854,925, patented Oct. 7, 1958, by J. A. Crocksford et al,
U.S. Pat. No. 2,923,243, patented Feb. 2, 1960, by J. A. Crocksford et al,
U.S. Pat. No. 2,995,373, patented Aug. 8, 1961, by J. R. Cox,
U.S. Pat. No. 3,093,077, patented June 11, 1963, by L. B. Harris,
U.S. Pat. No. 3,209,695, patented Oct. 5, 1965, by J. A. Crosksford et al,
U.S. Pat. No. 3,209,696, patented Oct. 5, 1965, by H. C. Palmer et al, (corresponding to Canadian Patent No. 790,342, patented July 23, 1968),
U.S. Pat. No. 3,396,660, patented Aug. 13, 1968, by F. L. Bilson et al,
U.S. Pat. No. 3,584,582, patented June 15, 1971, by C. Muller,
U.S. Pat. No. 3,701,533, patented Oct. 31, 1972, by H. C. Palmer,
U.S. Pat. No. 3,715,990, patented Feb. 13, 1973, by H. C. Palmer,
U.S. Pat. No. 3,837,284, patented Sept. 24, 1974, by R. B. Walderson, and
U.S. Pat. No. 3,901,158 patented Aug. 26, 1975 by T. E. Ferb.
These patents, while providing propulsion means, nevertheless raised many problems. One problem was inherent in the provision of an explosive cap or charge which could deteriorate on storage or exposure to moisture and thus be inoperative. The use of such explosive caps or charges also made it impossible to alter injection pressure. No provision was made for variable precharging of the prupulsion chamber prior to firing the device. Moreover, many of the proposed devices were difficult to manufacture due to the complexity of the structure. In all these devices of the prior art, the injection pressure was not finely controllable. Furthermore, in the case of the explosive device, injection was made with great and unalterable force, resulting in tissue damage that was poorly tolerated by smaller specimens.
A salient feature of these devices was that they were designed especially for remote injection of terrestial animals. No similar device exists for remote injection, in aquatic animals, of an intramuscular or intraperitoneal dose of a tranquillizing agent or other chemical as is commonly done with terrestrial animals, while insuring a minimum of damage to the animal. U.S. Pat. No. 3,340,642 patented Sept. 12, 1967 by T. P. Vasiljevic, provided injection of poisons into aquatic animals or fish whose purpose was to kill the target animal. Even if no poison were used in that device, however, the barbs which were employed would cause intolerable tissue damage.
Sedation and/or anesthesia of fish has hitherto been possible only by direct topical application of a strong solution of an anesthetic (by squirting the anesthetic solution in their immediate vicinity), or by complete immersion in a solution of the anesthetic. Drawbacks of the former method are waste of materials, hazard to human health, damage to non-target species and lack of efficiency with many species. Drawbacks of the immersion technique include waste of materials, necessity for entrapment before anesthesia (with resulting stress), and risk of contact dermatitis in humans exposed to solutions of the commonly used anethetics, e.g. tricaine methane sulfonate, quinaldine, or 2-phenoxyethanol. In the case of aquatic mammals, e.g. seals, standard parenteral anesthesia techniques must be preceded by entrapment, a procedure that is highly stressful.
A problem inherent in the remote injection of aquatic animals is associated with the travel of a spear gun shaft through the water. Such travel is known to be inherently unpredicatable because of the weight and resistance of the spear point. Devices have been patented in an attempt to solve the problem of true flight of such a device through the water. One such patented device was provided in U.S. Pat. No. 3,340,642, patented Sept. 12, 1967 by T. P. Vasiljevic, which taught a spear assembly in which the stability of flight in water was improved by a collar including radially-outwardly-extending fins which were slidably and non-rotationally received on the spear rod. Two problems inherent in this patented device are that the eccentricity, e.g. key and keyway, necessary to align travel of the fins results in dynamic unbalance, and that an alternative flat surface method of keyway would be ineffective in practice as the sliding fin would tend to bind.
There is therefore a need for means to capture aquatic animals from the wild without causing mechanical damage or physiological stress. Coupled with this need is a need for a means to inject a tranquillizer, antibiotic, hormone or other chemical compound into an aquatic or land animal without entrapment or handling of the animal and without causing undue tissue damage. It would be desirable to provide such means with a releasing device that will automatically detach the injection device from the animal after injection is complete. It would similarly be desirable to provide a device that could allow quick and complete detachment of the injection device from a handle, prod, or spear gun shaft, thus allowing the injection device to remain attached to the animal at least until injection is complete. The injecting means should also preferably include means to mark or otherwise identify animals, especially those that have been treated with the injection device. In view of its use underwater, it would also be desirable to provide an associated means to ensure a straighter trajectory of spear gun shafts, especially when they are fitted with special purpose points, e.g. an injection syringe and delivery mechanism.